In thinking "prove it" or "no evidence of that" in response to did you do it means "yes I did"

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

I've been thinking about this for a few weeks now (obviously I've not been very busy) my thoughts started when I was asking a friend about an allegation of domestic violence that was made against him that resulted in a long term protection order against him and his only real response to it was "she couldn't prove it" and "there was no evidence"

Now he brought up the subject I was not even aware of it before he did. But my gut automatic assumption to him and other people who say stuff like that especially about quite serious things tends to be "ok mate so yep she's right and you did do it"

So aibu to have that gut reaction or not?

That would be mine too. YANBU.

I have to say the wording is suspicious. It's not an outright, outraged denial is it?
Not being able to prove it is not the same as it not happening.

Yanbu

Yes, but if he was innocent, he might be exhausted by all the claims and accusations. It's her word vs his, and even if he is innocent, people believe the accuser 99% of the time.

But, yes it is a dickish way to say it. I'd be suspicious too, especially if he brought it up.

I agree in most cases but, in this case where action was taken against him (the protection order) I think he wold be justified in complaining that this action tarred him despite there being no evidence. He's your friend, he probably expected you just to accept that he didn't do it, he's complaining about the actions of others.

Unless you specifically asked "did you do it?", in which case yes, I think he probably did.

YANBU. It seems like an evasive and defensive way of putting it.

Is he a politician? He sounds like one.

Yanbu

I put this kind of language in the same box as "I swear on the kids/my mothers life

Big big clue that you are talking to a liar

It's like the guy who stroked the inside of my God Daughters thigh when sat next to her on the bus. When the police contacted him about it he said 'I don't remember doing that' instead of the more normal 'I wouldn't do that'.

I know he did it.

It was her word against his in the end, but I KNOW he did it.

I would think the same as you.

Surely if you hadn't done it, you'd be upset and saying that you didn't do it, how it hurt and affected you. If you DID say there was no evidence, it would be as part of a longer statement about how it was false, and they investigated, and you were innocent, it was a terrible time and so on. Not straight to she said I did X but they couldn't prove anything.

imo, you can't prove I did anything always = I did it and you can't prove it ha ha.

I was thinking about this recently, but because I'm sort of coming from the other side.

"But there's no evidence" is exactly the sort of thing I might say if unjustly accused, because I'm very literal.

I used to find it incomprehensible that people lie or bullshit, and just make stuff up as they go along to reach their goal. So I would be deeply puzzled by someone making an accusation when I couldn't see what made them believe the accusation, ie the evidence.

I want to agree with you that it's a weaselly, politician's answer and sign of probable guilt. But apparently not always.

Sorry, that made it sound like people are always bullshitting when they make an accusation and I can't see why.

Obviously a lot of the time they will just have different information from me, and we haven't done that juggling thing when you work out what each of you knows.

But my reaction might still be along the lines of "what's your evidence for that?" - which of course will come out exactly like the politician's answer.

"she couldn't prove it" is particularly interesting because it implies there is an 'it' to prove IYSWIM. I could see myself saying, "there's no evidence because it didn't happen" or something like that but I can't see why someone innocent would say, "she couldn't prove it".

YANBU.

I have similar feelings about "I have no recollection of...xyz" which was used by one of the Heads of Yorkshire Police regarding the Rotherham case on R4 last week.

It basically means "prove I knew about it/was told about it".

I did directly ask him and that's the answer I got. (After he brought it up)

It's just one of those things and I can't put my finger on exactly why it makes me think the way it does. But it does with any body at all who says it no matter who they are

For there to be a long term protection order there will have been something and some kind of evidence or witnesses. They don't just hand them out like sweets.

I know this youthecat the reason why he was talking to me about it as a 'friend' (I've changed my stance on him being a friend) is because I run a DVIP and have spent almost 2 decades working in that line of work.

It's not just him or just in relation to DV at all obviously my actually thinking about it was prompted by the conversation and then my mind wandered to the point that I've sort of concluded that anybody who says it about any thing at all is really saying "yes,yes I did"

Now in my mind this is inherently different to " I don't know why it even went to court they had no evidence" or "if you really think that have a look at the evidence" and that sort if thing

For some reason I feel even surer when "prove it" is used